W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Profile

14 May 2025

Attendees

Present
Ben_Francis, David_Ezell, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Mihcael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Ben
Scribe
EgeKorkan, kaz

Meeting minutes

Minutes

<kaz> May-7

Ben: any remarks to the minutes
… nothing, confirmed

Resolutions

Ben: We agreed to publish the current work as a note

Kaz: we meant to make a group-wide resolution about our plan during the main call but completely forgot. sorry. given you've sent an email about the proposed resolution, we can simply conclude that by email too.

Ben: Let's proceed as if it is done

Luca: I think so too. The email should mention that we can handle complaints

WG Note Process

Ben: (shows the W3C process)

Ben: should we publish a Draft Note or a Note?

Luca: given your constraints, is it better to do a draft note now or wait for a note

<dezell> +1 to moving ahead

Ege: I think we should just go ahead like the other deliverables
… (checks examples)
… ok we should go with a note

Kaz: also OK with publishing a Note based on our resolution

Issue Triage

Ben: Should an issue block if we go for a note
… we should go through an assign to people based on the triage
… I have reduced it with profile 1.0 label

Ege: is the "blocks publication" label usable?

Ben: seems inconsistent. "profile 1.0" are for features we want to include

<kaz> (Kaz just would like to suggest we look into each Issue which has the "blocks publication" label.)

Issue 6

<kaz> Issue 6 - Recommended Security

Ben: this is old, from 2019
… should we ask McCool

Luca: we should let the user decide
… we can say that this is not a profile problem

Ege: not sure anymore, I thought it can be closed if it is this old

Kaz: personally tend to agree with you all to close this issue. However, given McCool is not available during the whole May, I'd suggest we mark this not "blocks publication" but "need clarification" for today.

Ben: would close the issue itself with an explicit note to ask McCool for review./

Issue 41

<kaz> Issue 41 - Specific constraints on OAuth need to be defined

Ben: Ege you have commented fairly recently

Ege: It can be closed

Issue 63

<kaz> Issue 63 - Accessibility review of WoT Profile specification

Ben: we did not decide on this requirement

Ege: if we don't have a UI requirement, we don't need this "feature"

Ben: it is about an accesibility review

Ege: then we can close

Kaz: we can add a new "Profile-2.0" label instead of the "Profile-1.0"label"

Ben: done

David: w3c specs have a minimum of accessibility requirements

Issue 397

<kaz> Issue 397 - OAuth2 and SSE Notifications

Ben: authentication is indeed tricky on sse
… it is not a blocker for 1.0

David: I agree, it is tricky

Ben: we had a workaround for this in webthings
… this is just about best practices though

Kaz: we can move it to the security best practices repo, but would suggest we check with McCool

Issue 105

<kaz> Issue 105 - Action Improvements: identity /owner of an action invocation

Ben: never seen it done

Ege: me neither but kinda makes sense

Ben: probably only for complex systems

Ege: I think it can be close and opened by someone when they encounter the issue during implmentation

Issue 141

<kaz> Issue 141 - how to handle multiple forms

Ben: how should we handle this? left open?

Ege: it makes sense to have a public and local url

Kaz: wondering if this is really an issue for WoT Profile. Maybe it can be handled in the TD spec as well

issue 211

<kaz> Issue 211 - Image update for HTTP baseline profile

Ben: no figures like that, it can be closed

Issue 221

<kaz> Issue 221 - Security Schemes are too loose

Ben: (shows the current spec)

Ege: ok we can close it, it is addressed

Issue 237

<kaz> Issue 237 - Rework profile overview figure

<kaz> (closed)

Issue 254

<kaz> Issue 254 - Webhook unsubscribe operation in diagram doesn't match protocol binding

Ben: it seems like a bug and we agreed on delete

Ben: I will do it

Kaz: Is that a bug on the TD side?

Ben: no just an inconsistency on the profile document

Review

Ben: please everyone make sure to review the document

Kaz: we can continue the discussion next week if needed

Ben: have a conflict next week...

Kaz: let's continue the discussion in 2 weeks then :)

Ben: meanwhile, would be great if people could review the Issues on GitHub.

Ben: aob?
… adjourned

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).